[hyperpape]

Then don't read their website.

I'm entirely serious. If there's enough people like you, there's a good chance that it'll be noticed.

I tend to think that websites are under-optimizing for responsiveness, though I confess that I don't have evidence for that claim. However, I also think that the kind of puritanism on display in this article requires an amount of work that would be a waste (again, no evidence).

[trolleyhacker]

When on mobile, I don't actually passively browse. I only browse when I need something specific (e.g., directions, movie start time, etc.). To that end, I've used less than 100MB in the last month.

It would also be nice if we could have browsers restrict page size. That is, "hey, server, I'll only accept your page if it's less than X size." That'd be nice because then developers could get some actual feedback.

[sixstringtheory]

The average NYT subscriber probably doesn’t understand these intricacies around how websites are built and delivered to their phones, or how network effects and scaling affect the infrastructure needed to do so.

They also probably don’t care because they just signed onto the latest “unlimited” data plan with their service provider.

So there probably aren’t enough people who understand the problem to make NYT notice (or care) due to boycotting.

Regarding your last point: a waste for whom? AFAICT the only people benefitting from sticky/engaging services, highly instrumented frontends and downright dark patterns are the people extracting wealth, either directly from subscriptions (not so bad) or, in a much grander sense IMO, data brokers (bad, real bad).

[hyperpape]

People notice when things are slow and annoying. They close the window and don't look at it.

You might be right that not enough people will change their behavior to make a difference. And if so, tough luck. You and I aren't entitled to a news outlet that meets our latency requirements. We are entitled to complain on HN, but no one will really listen.

Of course you also benefit via reading the news, having reporting on official corruption, and all that jazz. Contrary to your snark about wealth extraction, media outlets are typically losing money and cutting back on reporting. The NYTimes is in a better position than most, but in general, the problem is too little money, not too much.